People v. Longaria, 84
| Decision Date | 02 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 84,84 |
| Citation | 53 N.W.2d 685,333 Mich. 696 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. LONGARIA. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Dahlem & Dahlem, Jackson, for appellant.
Kenneth B. Johnson, Jackson, Asst. Pros. Atty, for Jackson County, for the People.
Before the Entire Bench.
By an information dated October 4, 1950, Larry Longaria, defendant and appellant herein, was charged with having committed statutory rape on the 29th day of June, 1950, in Jackson county. On arraignment defendant stood must. A plea of not guilty was entered. A jury trial resulted in a verdict of guilty and sentence was imposed. Defendant's motion for a new tiral was denied. He has appealed, leave having been granted.
Defendant cites three errors in consequence of which he contends a new trial should have been granted. The first alleged error has to do with the trial court's refusal to admit in evidence defendant's exhibit A, which was a time sheek kept by defendant's employer for the week of June 26 to July 2, 1950. The purpose for which this exhibit was sought to be introduced in evidence was to establish an alibi by showing that defendant was working in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw county, between the hours of 4 p. m. and 12 midnight, on June 29, 1950; while the offense was claimed by the prosecution as committed between those hours in Jackson county. The trial court refused to receive the exhibit in evidence. Appellant asserts that this time sheet should have been received in evidence under the provisions of P.A.1935, No. 15, C.L.1948, § 617.53, Stat.Ann. § 27.902. Regardless of whether appellant's contention in this respect is tenable, the exhibit was properly excluded for the following reason. Obviously the purpose of offering exhibit A in evidence was to show that defendant was not in Jackson county at the time of the alleged offense, since he was at that time working in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw county, from 4 p. m. to 12 midnight on that day. By showing such to be the fact, defendant was attempting to establish an alibi. Under our code of criminal procedure, when an accused wishes to set up an alibi as a defense he must give the prosecution notice of such defense at least 4 days prior to trial. C.L.1948, § 768.20, Stat.Ann.1951 Cum.Supp. § 28.1043. If an accused fails to give the notice required by the statute the trial court may refuse to receive evidence of alibi. In the instant case defendant did not give the notice required by statute, and it was within the trial court's discretion under the circumstances to refuse to receive in evidence exhibit A.
The second alleged error which defendant cites is that he should have been permitted to read and comment to the jury on questions and answers the people's witness, Theresa Atzenhover, had given at a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Merritt
...People v. Eamaus, 207 Mich. 442, 174 N.W. 177 (1919).4 See People v. McFadden, 347 Mich. 357, 79 N.W.2d 869 (1956); People v. Longaria, 333 Mich. 696, 53 N.W.2d 685 (1952); People v. Sherrod, 32 Mich.App. 183, 188 N.W.2d 221 (1971); People v. Johnson, 5 Mich.App. 257, 146 N.W.2d 107 (1966);......
-
People v. Finley
...140 Mich.App. 222, 233, 363 N.W.2d 455 (1985). Closing argument is not the time to introduce new evidence. Cf., People v. Longaria, 333 Mich. 696, 698-699, 53 N.W.2d 685 (1952). The trial court properly denied defense counsel's The next issue raised is whether the trial court erred in allow......
-
People v. Cooper, Docket No. 206970.
...evidence or point out the weak points in the State's case so far as they involve questions of fact and not of law. People v. Longaria, 333 Mich. 696, 699, 53 N.W.2d 685 (1952) (emphasis Indeed, it is inherent in our system of criminal jurisprudence that a jury is presumed to have the capaci......
-
People v. Williams, Docket No. 2410
...fails to give the notice required by the statute the trial court may refuse to receive evidence of alibi.' People v. Longaria (1952), 333 Mich. 696, 698, 53 N.W.2d 685, 686. The statutory requirement that defendants in criminal cases not cognizable by a justice of the peace give notice of t......